New Light

[dcforrey]

I wonder what can be a more difficult choice for most Jehovah’s Witnesses: That they they all believe the right thing, or that they all believe the same thing? I assume that many have had to face that question. For example, what if you have been told all of your life that doctrine A is true, and that it is supported by scripture. Assume that you have read those scriptures and that you agree that those scriptures do indeed support doctrine A.

Now suppose that tomorrow you are told that there is “new light”, and that doctrine A is no longer true, but that doctrine B has taken its place. The scriptures you once thought supported doctrine A are no longer relevant. Instead, a whole new set of scripture references are given that supposedly support doctrine B. Would you be disfellowshipped if you stick to doctrine A?

And to make things worse, what if sometime in the future you are told that because of even more “new light” that doctrine B is no longer true, but that doctrine A was true after all? Is “old light” sometimes better than “new light”?

 

[RiJoRi]

There are many religions/religious groups where this has happened/is happening. The question comes down to, "Is your trust in an organization, or in God?" Sadly, many reply, "I trust my organization, no matter what!"

--Rich

 

[jamesh]

I wonder what can be a more difficult choice for most Jehovah’s Witnesses: That they they all believe the right thing, or that they all believe the same thing? I assume that many have had to face that question. For example, what if you have been told all of your life that doctrine A is true, and that it is supported by scripture. Assume that you have read those scriptures and that you agree that those scriptures do indeed support doctrine A.

Now suppose that tomorrow you are told that there is “new light”, and that doctrine A is no longer true, but that doctrine B has taken its place. The scriptures you once thought supported doctrine A are no longer relevant. Instead, a whole new set of scripture references are given that supposedly support doctrine B. Would you be disfellowshipped if you stick to doctrine A?

And to make things worse, what if sometime in the future you are told that because of even more “new light” that doctrine B is no longer true, but that doctrine A was true after all? Is “old light” sometimes better than “new light”?

This in spite of what their own writings teach here:

https://imgur.com/a1q1mnG

What they do is ignore this and say Mr. Russell's viewpoint don't count anymore. Total "hypocrisy" on their part.

IN GOD THE SON,
james

 

[imJRR]

I wonder what can be a more difficult choice for most Jehovah’s Witnesses: That they they all believe the right thing, or that they all believe the same thing? I assume that many have had to face that question. For example, what if you have been told all of your life that doctrine A is true, and that it is supported by scripture. Assume that you have read those scriptures and that you agree that those scriptures do indeed support doctrine A.

Now suppose that tomorrow you are told that there is “new light”, and that doctrine A is no longer true, but that doctrine B has taken its place. The scriptures you once thought supported doctrine A are no longer relevant. Instead, a whole new set of scripture references are given that supposedly support doctrine B. Would you be disfellowshipped if you stick to doctrine A?

And to make things worse, what if sometime in the future you are told that because of even more “new light” that doctrine B is no longer true, but that doctrine A was true after all? Is “old light” sometimes better than “new light”?

There is NOTHING to prevent what you are saying from happening with JWs.

 

[dcforrey]

I can’t imagine the pressure that some must feel who find themselves in a place where they cannot express any real difference of belief for fear that they will lose their entire social structure. To me, looking from the outside it appears that the pressure is great to stay in agreement on everything, with few exceptions being left up to one’s conscience. Almost everything becomes an essential belief.

It used to be the case (and I assume is still the case) that in order for a doctrine to change there must be a two-thirds majority vote of the Governing Body. That would put some people in a very difficult position. If the official doctrine of the organization is doctrine A, and if a majority of Governing Body members (but less than two-thirds majority) prefers to change to doctrine B, then a person who advocates for doctrine B risks being disfellowshipped, even though a majority of the Governing Body agrees with him.

 

[imJRR]

I can’t imagine the pressure that some must feel who find themselves in a place where they cannot express any real difference of belief for fear that they will lose their entire social structure. To me, looking from the outside it appears that the pressure is great to stay in agreement on everything, with few exceptions being left up to one’s conscience. Almost everything becomes an essential belief.

It used to be the case (and I assume is still the case) that in order for a doctrine to change there must be a two-thirds majority vote of the Governing Body. That would put some people in a very difficult position. If the official doctrine of the organization is doctrine A, and if a majority of Governing Body members (but less than two-thirds majority) prefers to change to doctrine B, then a person who advocates for doctrine B risks being disfellowshipped, even though a majority of the Governing Body agrees with him.

Regarding your first paragraph - You're right. The list of REQUIRED beliefs for JWs is quite long, and NONE of it is biblical.

Awhile ago, I met a JW who is what's called a PIMO - Physically In, Mentally Out. He did not believe any of the falsehoods of the Watchtower any longer, but stayed because (and ONLY because) if he left the JWs, his wife would leave him and take their children with her and he would never see them again.

Regarding your second paragraph - Very true.

 

[dcforrey]

Regarding your first paragraph - You're right. The list of REQUIRED beliefs for JWs is quite long, and NONE of it is biblical.

Awhile ago, I met a JW who is what's called a PIMO - Physically In, Mentally Out. He did not believe any of the falsehoods of the Watchtower any longer, but stayed because (and ONLY because) if he left the JWs, his wife would leave him and take their children with her and he would never see them again.

Regarding your second paragraph - Very true.

You make a good point. That kind of system would seem to me to foster an environment in which people are put under so much pressure to at least outwardly agree that they end up essentially living double lives. On the one hand it can be comforting and validating to “know” that you have the one true belief system, while on the other hand feelings of unworthiness and fear that you aren’t really living up to its standards internally. It can create a lot of tension and a huge burden. I know the feeling.

Fortunately Jesus wants us to come to Him with our burdens.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I wonder what can be a more difficult choice for most Jehovah’s Witnesses: That they they all believe the right thing, or that they all believe the same thing? I assume that many have had to face that question. For example, what if you have been told all of your life that doctrine A is true, and that it is supported by scripture. Assume that you have read those scriptures and that you agree that those scriptures do indeed support doctrine A.

Now suppose that tomorrow you are told that there is “new light”, and that doctrine A is no longer true, but that doctrine B has taken its place. The scriptures you once thought supported doctrine A are no longer relevant. Instead, a whole new set of scripture references are given that supposedly support doctrine B. Would you be disfellowshipped if you stick to doctrine A?

And to make things worse, what if sometime in the future you are told that because of even more “new light” that doctrine B is no longer true, but that doctrine A was true after all? Is “old light” sometimes better than “new light”?

Is garbage better fresh, or better if you allow it to "Season"for a while????

 

[Black Jack]

I wonder what can be a more difficult choice for most Jehovah’s Witnesses: That they they all believe the right thing, or that they all believe the same thing? I assume that many have had to face that question. For example, what if you have been told all of your life that doctrine A is true, and that it is supported by scripture. Assume that you have read those scriptures and that you agree that those scriptures do indeed support doctrine A.

Now suppose that tomorrow you are told that there is “new light”, and that doctrine A is no longer true, but that doctrine B has taken its place. The scriptures you once thought supported doctrine A are no longer relevant. Instead, a whole new set of scripture references are given that supposedly support doctrine B. Would you be disfellowshipped if you stick to doctrine A?

And to make things worse, what if sometime in the future you are told that because of even more “new light” that doctrine B is no longer true, but that doctrine A was true after all? Is “old light” sometimes better than “new light”?

Do they admit they made a mistake?

 

[imJRR]

Do they admit they made a mistake?

I believe the official teaching is that a new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. "New Light" never extinguishes older "light" but adds to it.

The problem is - There are genuine flip-flops/contradictions in JW beliefs. For instance, JW Founder C.T. Russell did not believe that Christ was Michael the archangel. There is a thread on this forum on page 3 that has a quote by him stating this. But JWs today definitely (and falsely) believe that Christ is Michael.

 

[dcforrey]

I think it would be extremely difficult for them to admit mistakes. I’m not aware of any instances of that happening. I think that one reason would be that the Governing Body would have to deal with the unpleasant situation where a person may have been disfellowshipped for believing something that was once considered wrong, but has now become acceptable due to the “new light”.

That actually was a problem back when they changed their stance on those who were faced with the decision whether or not to apply for alternative service, rather than joining the military. In some countries that meant that a Witness would have to choose whether to refuse military service and end up in prison, or to accept alternative service and be disfellowshipped. At one point that position was reversed, so that it became a “conscience matter”. The unfortunate thing was that prior to that reversal there was a majority (but not yet a two-thirds majority) of the Governing Body who favored the change, which meant that people were being punished unnecessarily. People were being disfellowshipped or sent to prison who actually had a majority of the Governing Body who agreed with their decision, whichever one it might have been.

I have not heard of any instances where the Governing Body apologized to those who were harmed. Were any of them who had been disfellowshipped eventually reinstated? Were those who had been sent to prison compensated in some way?

 

[keiw]

I wonder what can be a more difficult choice for most Jehovah’s Witnesses: That they they all believe the right thing, or that they all believe the same thing? I assume that many have had to face that question. For example, what if you have been told all of your life that doctrine A is true, and that it is supported by scripture. Assume that you have read those scriptures and that you agree that those scriptures do indeed support doctrine A.

Now suppose that tomorrow you are told that there is “new light”, and that doctrine A is no longer true, but that doctrine B has taken its place. The scriptures you once thought supported doctrine A are no longer relevant. Instead, a whole new set of scripture references are given that supposedly support doctrine B. Would you be disfellowshipped if you stick to doctrine A?

And to make things worse, what if sometime in the future you are told that because of even more “new light” that doctrine B is no longer true, but that doctrine A was true after all? Is “old light” sometimes better than “new light”?

One has no choice but to listen to Jesus' appointed teachers( Matt 24:45) Luke 10:16) teaches its the same as listening to Jesus and God, or vica versa. So if one is telling those teachers no, they are saying no to Jesus and God as well. No domestic-EVER- knows a revealed truth before those teachers do-at the proper time.
Some truths were hidden until these last days(Dan 12:4) and at the proper time they get revealed through those teachers--that means all religions claiming to be christian taught error on those hidden truths all throughout because all those truths were still in the bible already. It took correction in front of all hearts, at the proper time, here in these last days to fix the errors. All of creation saw it occur.

 

[dcforrey]

One has no choice but to listen to Jesus' appointed teachers( Matt 24:45) Luke 10:16) teaches its the same as listening to Jesus and God, or vica versa. So if one is telling those teachers no, they are saying no to Jesus and God as well. No domestic-EVER- knows a revealed truth before those teachers do-at the proper time.
Some truths were hidden until these last days(Dan 12:4) and at the proper time they get revealed through those teachers--that means all religions claiming to be christian taught error on those hidden truths all throughout because all those truths were still in the bible already. It took correction in front of all hearts, at the proper time, here in these last days to fix the errors. All of creation saw it occur.

Thank you for responding. Here is your response again with my emphases added:

One has no choice but to listen to Jesus' appointed teachers( Matt 24:45) Luke 10:16) teaches its the same as listening to Jesus and God, or vica versa. So if one is telling those teachers no, they are saying no to Jesus and God as well. No domestic-EVER- knows a revealed truth before those teachers do-at the proper time.

Some truths were hidden until these last days(Dan 12:4) and at the proper time they get revealed through those teachers--that means all religions claiming to be christian taught error on those hidden truths all throughout because all those truths were still in the bible already. It took correction in front of all hearts, at the proper time, here in these last days to fix the errors. All of creation saw it occur.

This is quite revealing to me. You are at least being clear that when it comes to what you believe, you have “no choice” in the matter if you want to be in good standing with the organization. You believe that “Jesus’ appointed teachers” (which I assume refers to the Governing Body) must be obeyed at all times, since what they say is the same as listening to “Jesus and God”.

This would mean that you are never allowed to compare what “those teachers” say with the Bible and come to any other conclusion than that of “those teachers”. If they tell you that doctrine A is true, you have no choice – you must believe it, and even defend it, even if you know that at some point it could change. Then if at some point they do change their minds and say that doctrine A is no longer true, but that doctrine B is now true, you would be required to begin defending a doctrine you were strongly opposing yesterday. How could you do that in good conscience? How strongly would you really believe anything, since everything is subject to change?

And if more and more truth truth is gradually revealed over time, then how can someone reconcile those times when Doctrine A is changed to Doctrine B, then back to Doctrine A again? This has actually happened.

Also realize that in order for a change to be made there must first be a two-thirds majority of “those teachers” in order to make that change. If only 12 of 17 Governing Body members want to change to doctrine B they have to hope that at some point someone will change his mind, or hope that at some point another member will be added who agrees with the change. Otherwise honest people will be subject to the likelihood of losing their entire social structure. Are those 12 members the only ones "listening to God"?

When does the time come when individual Witnesses are permitted to say “We ought to obey God rather than men”, and get away with it? How do you determine whether or not any of “those teachers” are not wolves in sheep’s clothing? Is it not by comparing what they say to scripture? Has it really come to a point where Witnesses can say “we believe only the Bible” when what they really mean is “we believe only what the Governing Body says the Bible means, but only until two-thirds of them change their minds”? Should Governing Body members who disagree with any current doctrine be removed?

 

[keiw]

Thank you for responding. Here is your response again with my emphases added:

One has no choice but to listen to Jesus' appointed teachers( Matt 24:45) Luke 10:16) teaches its the same as listening to Jesus and God, or vica versa. So if one is telling those teachers no, they are saying no to Jesus and God as well. No domestic-EVER- knows a revealed truth before those teachers do-at the proper time.

Some truths were hidden until these last days(Dan 12:4) and at the proper time they get revealed through those teachers--that means all religions claiming to be christian taught error on those hidden truths all throughout because all those truths were still in the bible already. It took correction in front of all hearts, at the proper time, here in these last days to fix the errors. All of creation saw it occur.

This is quite revealing to me. You are at least being clear that when it comes to what you believe, you have “no choice” in the matter if you want to be in good standing with the organization. You believe that “Jesus’ appointed teachers” (which I assume refers to the Governing Body) must be obeyed at all times, since what they say is the same as listening to “Jesus and God”.

This would mean that you are never allowed to compare what “those teachers” say with the Bible and come to any other conclusion than that of “those teachers”. If they tell you that doctrine A is true, you have no choice – you must believe it, and even defend it, even if you know that at some point it could change. Then if at some point they do change their minds and say that doctrine A is no longer true, but that doctrine B is now true, you would be required to begin defending a doctrine you were strongly opposing yesterday. How could you do that in good conscience? How strongly would you really believe anything, since everything is subject to change?

And if more and more truth truth is gradually revealed over time, then how can someone reconcile those times when Doctrine A is changed to Doctrine B, then back to Doctrine A again? This has actually happened.

Also realize that in order for a change to be made there must first be a two-thirds majority of “those teachers” in order to make that change. If only 12 of 17 Governing Body members want to change to doctrine B they have to hope that at some point someone will change his mind, or hope that at some point another member will be added who agrees with the change. Otherwise honest people will be subject to the likelihood of losing their entire social structure. Are those 12 members the only ones "listening to God"?

When does the time come when individual Witnesses are permitted to say “We ought to obey God rather than men”, and get away with it? How do you determine whether or not any of “those teachers” are not wolves in sheep’s clothing? Is it not by comparing what they say to scripture? Has it really come to a point where Witnesses can say “we believe only the Bible” when what they really mean is “we believe only what the Governing Body says the Bible means, but only until two-thirds of them change their minds”? Should Governing Body members who disagree with any current doctrine be removed?

My teachers teach us the whole bible without fail. There is no perfection with imperfect mortals, God knows this, so if this teaching is changed( maybe satan got in and inspired error) so they changed it back to truth. Satan does attack Gods people relentlessly. In Peters book bad teachings got in, In titus, he was left behind to correct error teachings that got in. Paul corrected Peter 1 time. The best path is to make correction once error is found. The GB are these-Matt 24:45) One best listen to them as Luke 10:16 shares. Only a haughty heart could actually believe they know a truth better than the teachers Jesus is with or before them. By making correction in front of all creation proves 100% Gods truth is what they want and will not settle for less.

 

[dcforrey]

My teachers teach us the whole bible without fail. There is no perfection with imperfect mortals, God knows this, so if this teaching is changed( maybe satan got in and inspired error) so they changed it back to truth. Satan does attack Gods people relentlessly. In Peters book bad teachings got in, In titus, he was left behind to correct error teachings that got in. Paul corrected Peter 1 time. The best path is to make correction once error is found. The GB are these-Matt 24:45) One best listen to them as Luke 10:16 shares. Only a haughty heart could actually believe they know a truth better than the teachers Jesus is with or before them. By making correction in front of all creation proves 100% Gods truth is what they want and will not settle for less.

It appears that what you are saying is that the fact that the organization has made so many changes is proof that it has the truth. But you also argue that “maybe satan got in and inspired error”. What if the GB changes from doctrine A to doctrine B. Did they change it to truth? Then if they change it back to doctrine A again did doctrine B then become false? Which one did Satan inspire?

How do you know that any of your doctrines are the final truth? Which ones might be changed tomorrow?

 

[keiw]

It appears that what you are saying is that the fact that the organization has made so many changes is proof that it has the truth. But you also argue that “maybe satan got in and inspired error”. What if the GB changes from doctrine A to doctrine B. Did they change it to truth? Then if they change it back to doctrine A again did doctrine B then become false? Which one did Satan inspire?

How do you know that any of your doctrines are the final truth? Which ones might be changed tomorrow?

Yes satan tries to inspire error. But Jesus promised that he would send Holy spirit to guide his real teachers into all truth( here in these last days)--that is at the proper time, not before. As well early years only had error filled trinity translation to go by. It took years of hard study, by many men, of bibles, languages, history, religions, to find certain truths and make correction.
Your scholars know 100% that at John 1:1, in Greek, the Word is not called the same thing as the true God in the second line. The word was not being called God, he was called god small g.

 

[jamesh]

Yes satan tries to inspire error. But Jesus promised that he would send Holy spirit to guide his real teachers into all truth( here in these last days)--that is at the proper time, not before. As well early years only had error filled trinity translation to go by. It took years of hard study, by many men, of bibles, languages, history, religions, to find certain truths and make correction.
Your scholars know 100% that at John 1:1, in Greek, the Word is not called the same thing as the true God in the second line. The word was not being called God, he was called god small g.

How do you explain that the Holy Spirit (according to Acts 2:4) was received over 2,000 years before the "proper time" which is according to you these last days? Also, you said, "it took years to correct those trinity translations so how did people became Christians during all those years?

Afterall, your NWT came out on August 2, 1950, so again how did people become Christians? Btw, don't you mean God's "active force" was the "it" that the people received at Acts 2:4? Lastly, why insert that Jesus is "a god" at John 1:1 if according to you He is not the true god? What purpose does that serve? What you should have done, (and there is still time) for you to correct this is to put the word "Messiah or the Christ" was with God, not "a god" because there are no "a gods" in Scripture other than them being "false gods."

IN GOD THE SON,
james

 

[dcforrey]

Yes satan tries to inspire error. But Jesus promised that he would send Holy spirit to guide his real teachers into all truth( here in these last days)--that is at the proper time, not before. As well early years only had error filled trinity translation to go by. It took years of hard study, by many men, of bibles, languages, history, religions, to find certain truths and make correction.
Your scholars know 100% that at John 1:1, in Greek, the Word is not called the same thing as the true God in the second line. The word was not being called God, he was called god small g.

I notice that the Watchtower Society teaches that the United Nations is the “scarlet colored wild beast”. What would you do if today you found out that yesterday the Watchtower Society actually joined the United Nations, and that it agreed to “support the work of the United Nations”? Would you remain in the organization? Would joining the UN mean that the organization had been “inspired by error”?

 

[keiw]

How do you explain that the Holy Spirit (according to Acts 2:4) was received over 2,000 years before the "proper time" which is according to you these last days? Also, you said, "it took years to correct those trinity translations so how did people became Christians during all those years?

Afterall, your NWT came out on August 2, 1950, so again how did people become Christians? Btw, don't you mean God's "active force" was the "it" that the people received at Acts 2:4? Lastly, why insert that Jesus is "a god" at John 1:1 if according to you He is not the true god? What purpose does that serve? What you should have done, (and there is still time) for you to correct this is to put the word "Messiah or the Christ" was with God, not "a god" because there are no "a gods" in Scripture other than them being "false gods."

IN GOD THE SON,
james

The holy spirit was used in OT as well. But the religion Jesus began was murdered along with all the followers. the great apostasy rose in place of it(2 Thess 2:3) Here in these last days Jesus' religion came back, corrected the errors, fixed the altered translations and had truths revealed through them via holy spirit. Without that happening, this could never be truth-Dan 12:4

 

[keiw]

How do you explain that the Holy Spirit (according to Acts 2:4) was received over 2,000 years before the "proper time" which is according to you these last days? Also, you said, "it took years to correct those trinity translations so how did people became Christians during all those years?

Afterall, your NWT came out on August 2, 1950, so again how did people become Christians? Btw, don't you mean God's "active force" was the "it" that the people received at Acts 2:4? Lastly, why insert that Jesus is "a god" at John 1:1 if according to you He is not the true god? What purpose does that serve? What you should have done, (and there is still time) for you to correct this is to put the word "Messiah or the Christ" was with God, not "a god" because there are no "a gods" in Scripture other than them being "false gods."

IN GOD THE SON,
james

a god means--has godlike qualities--God did all the powerful things through Jesus( Acts 2:22) God created all things through Jesus( Coll 1:15-16)
God is the only one with the power to do them.
All those people died and paid in full the wages of sin, they will get resurrected and given an opportunity to learn and apply Gods will during that time. Plus they could read and understand many of Gods requirements showing him they cared what he thought. Here in these last days one must know truth.